D&D 5E Define Advantage and Disadvantage and when it should be used

[VinylTap]

I think Li Sheron's apprehensions are definitely legitimate.

The mechanic has its ups and downs, I hope the meta-game doesn't become 'lets get advantage'. The prevalence of the machanic in the playtest could have more do to with its easy simplicity (its an easy mechanic to assign in a "feat light" playtest) as well they want to see get as much feedback as they can from it, so throw it around a lot and see where it buggers up the game.

Bounded accuracy definitely helps the mechanic, at least in relationship to +2/-2 modifiers. I hope they don't toss it around too much, but I can't see a way of them doing a good rogue class that doesn't use it pretty liberally. Fighters definitely shouldn't need it, Ranger should probably have some abilities associated with it. Paladin and Druid should probably live without it, at least as a pivotal mechanic of their class.

 

[Ferghis]

I think Li Sheron's apprehensions are definitely legitimate.

I think static bonuses should come from important sources: level, class, feats, items, and other permanent sources that improve, to paraphrase [MENTION=1465]Li Shenron[/MENTION], the range and limits of a character's potential. But most spells and circumstantial advantages I would prefer to be transformed in stacking advantages. If only a few sources grant a static bonus, and most just grant advantage, we won't run into 3.x and 4e's legalistic classification of bonuses. They can all stack, and it won't be a threat to the system's balance.

 

[Sadrik]

I have doubts since a year ago about advantage/disadvantage being a good rule...

Excellent points. I worry about when advantage/disadvantage is applied vs. bonus/penalties. Its application is not consistent.

I think it is a fun mechanic, whatever that means, but I think it needs to find a home in a place where it is always consistently used. I really like it as a skill system and weapon proficiency.

So if all characters were to begin with disadvantage in all skills. Then pick some skills to have a natural roll and then have an ability to become a master at a skill through later feats or what-have-you.

Weapon proficiency could work the same way, disadvantage in all weapons, if you have proficiency you get a normal roll. Then you cannot get mastery except through advanced training (feats or class features etc.).

In a game where skills are not used the assumption could be that players have to ask for the straight roll, otherwise they roll with disadvantage. The DM could float out advantage too when appropriate.

If the advantage/disadvantage mechanic were used in this very predictable way I think your wariness would be cleared up and so would mine.

 

[Quartz]

The danger of 1- is that it can be too easy. The first time you play, Bob has a nice idea of using his shield to reflect the light of the sun against the eyes of an enemy: kewlz!! you deserve advantage! After trying a few more different kewlz ideas, and perhaps sometimes meeting DM's disapproval, Bob resorts to the same "shield reflect trick" because it worked once, so it has to work again, otherwise the DM is not running the game consistently! Now Bob pretends to make it always work, as long as there is a shield in hand and a sun in the sky. The DM has two alternatives: engage in a game of wit against Bob trying to nerf his tactics, or plain anc clear say she is changing the ruling because now it's boring. This is not so nice.

Could you say that this sort of thing in general is subsumed in the levelling-up process? Further, with the specific example, in 3E terms, dazzling the enemy with the shield is at least a move-equivalent action (and should have a saving throw to boot) so Bob cannot make a Full Attack. Not a problem for a low-level character but definitely an issue for mid+ level characters. IOW, and back to generalising, you do get an advantage, but at a price.

 

[Li Shenron]

Could you say that this sort of thing in general is subsumed in the levelling-up process? Further, with the specific example, in 3E terms, dazzling the enemy with the shield is at least a move-equivalent action (and should have a saving throw to boot) so Bob cannot make a Full Attack. Not a problem for a low-level character but definitely an issue for mid+ level characters. IOW, and back to generalising, you do get an advantage, but at a price.

It's not useful to get into the details of one example, particularly because my example was about using (dis)advantage as a way to support improvisation, in which case the DM probably won't want to stop and think about how to change actions or other things, but rather make a quick ruling of the type "yes, you get advantage" or "no, you don't get advantage".

But what you're saying here actually shows exactly what is my concern. The first time, the DM may say "cool idea, here's advantage for you". The next couple of times, player will ask the same, DM will grant it "for consistency". Then, it will happen exactly as you wrote: the DM will have to think about a way to "nerf" the trick, or at least to "balance" it, and in doing so it will have to complicate the game (of course it's not much a complication as long as there is only one trick "shield+sun", but once this has happened with a bunch of tricks already, and the DM had to introduce an ad-hoc rule to nerf each of them, then yes it will have complicated the game). The point being, if you treat (dis)advantage as a general method to adjudicate on the fly quick-and-easy, but the method leads the DM to later complicate the game, it would quite pointless since the start... that was one of my concerns.

But to be fair, I think SOME designers are aware of this, in fact some of them (Mearls, perhaps) wrote in some WotC column that it's safer to grant (dis)advantage only when the rules specifically say so, as is the case e.g. when you have a feat/ability specifically granting you advantage in a certain situation, or when someone is affected by a condition that by the RAW grants (dis)advantage to some rolls.

However, the current playtest rules (DM guidelines) still talk about granting advantage as a reward to player's description. IMHO this will cause these problems.

If it was up to me, I'd restrict (dis)advantage to two types of cases:

- a specific ability, condition or environmental situation grants (dis)advantage by the RAW

- the DM (and only the DM) decides on her own initiative that a situation not covered by the RAW grants (dis)advantage

IOW, (dis)advantage should never be left in the hands of the players to ask for it!

 

[Gorgoroth]

Yes, if you ask for advantage, you don't get it. Here's your cookie for being a good boy I actually don't have a problem with that, but DMs are often overrun with multiple lines of thought during combat and it does make sense for players AND their characters' trying to get advantage and remind DMs they deserve a benefit for creative thinking. E.g. jump up on the table to be able to get a height advantage, while risking falling off it if he rolls a low dex check or perhaps the enemy decides to chop off the leg of the table (instantly succeeding, thus you're prone -- now he has advantage instead of you).

What I'd like is a) NO way to consistently get it, except via height advantage (e.g. flying creatures would have it vs creatures on the ground, with melee attacks at least), or some other way that makes sense, and b) if a mechanic such as backstab requires it, then it should require a successful stealth check, meaning those DCs should be considered when calculating expected average rogue damage per round. 4e completely ruined Combat Advantage once they put out WinterTouched or whatever it was, then they introduced all sorts of other feats which were "must haves" and I do not want a repeat of that. No feat, class feature, or spell lasting more than a few rounds should grant consistent advantage. This is what keeps the gamers involved in the surroundings of where they are fighting (in the words of Yoda "always thinking you, of the future, the past, never on what you were doing!") I don't want the environment to be "fluff" any more.

I don't want a single feat to make it so I can ignore every single other way to get advantage thus every single combat scenario becomes the same as every other one. As a powergamer, CA feats in 4e were "must haves", especially for rogues. We need to remove "must haves", and make it so you ARE jockeying vs the DM to get advantage. That's part of the fun and challenge of playing a rogue!! You vie with the enemy for tactical advantages that allow you to slit their throats after they let their guard down and expose their jugular.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I can't remember where I saw it precisely, but I believe someone at WOTC said that as a general rule in their games they say "If someone uses up their action to give someone Advantage, then they should be able to as long as their idea is relatively ok."

However, anything that doesn't use up your action should not grant Advantage. That's why hiding takes an action as well.